Item 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

California Bankruptcy Litigation. In consolidated actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned Terri N. White, et al. v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Jose Hernandez v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Kathryn L. Pike v. Equifax Information Services LLC, and Jose L. Acosta, Jr., et al. v. Trans Union LLC, et al. , plaintiffs asserted that Equifax violated federal and state law (the FCRA, the California Credit Reporting Act and the California Unfair Competition Law) by failing to follow reasonable procedures to determine whether credit accounts are discharged in bankruptcy, including the method for updating the status of an account following a bankruptcy discharge. On August 20, 2008, the District Court approved a Settlement Agreement and Release providing for certain changes in the procedures used by defendants to record discharges in bankruptcy on consumer credit files. That settlement resolved claims for injunctive relief, but not plaintiffs’ claims for damages. On May 7, 2009, the District Court issued an order preliminarily approving an agreement to settle remaining class claims. The District Court subsequently deferred final approval of the settlement and required the settling parties to send a supplemental notice to those class members who filed a claim and objected to the settlement or opted out, with the cost for the re-notice to be deducted from the plaintiffs’ counsel fee award. Mailing of the supplemental notice was completed on February 15, 2011 and the deadline for this group of settling plaintiffs to provide additional documentation to support their damage claims or to opt-out of the settlement was March 31, 2011. On July 15, 2011, the District Court approved the settlement. Several objecting plaintiffs subsequently filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which, on April 22, 2013, issued an order vacating the settlement and remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings. On January 21, 2014, the District Court denied the objecting plaintiffs’ motion to disqualify counsel for the settling plaintiffs and granted the motion of counsel for the settling plaintiffs to be appointed as interim lead class counsel. On March 28, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s lead counsel appointment. On January 9, 2017, the United States Supreme Court denied the objectors’ Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The parties have re-engaged in settlement discussions, including participation in mediations in August 2016 and November 2016, and have reached an agreement in principle to again settle the monetary claims. The parties are currently drafting the necessary settlement documents. The deadline to file the settlement documents with the Court is March 17, 2017 and the Court has scheduled a hearing on the expected Motion for Preliminary Approval on May 2, 2017.

CFPB Investigations. In February 2014, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (a “CID”) from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB” or the “Bureau”) as part of its investigation to determine whether nationwide consumer reporting agencies have been or are engaging in unlawful acts or practices relating to the advertising, marketing, sale or provision of consumer reports, credit scores or credit monitoring products in violation of the Dodd Frank Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The CID requested the production of documents and answers to written questions. A second CID was issued in July 2015, seeking additional documents and information. In January 2017, the Company reached a settlement of this investigation with the CFPB. The settlement requires the payment of $3.8 million in consumer restitution plus $2.5 million in civil money penalties. In addition, the Company has agreed to modify certain marketing practices.

In June 2016, we received a CID from the CFPB as part of an investigation to determine whether Equifax Workforce Solutions has been or is engaging in unlawful acts or practices relating to the creation, provision, handling, advertising, marketing or sale of consumer reports or similar products or services in violation of the Dodd Frank Act or the Fair Credit Reporting Act. In December 2016, the CFPB notified the Company that it completed its investigation and currently does not intend to take any enforcement action against Equifax Workforce Solutions.

Other. Equifax has been named as a defendant in various other legal actions, including administrative claims, regulatory matters, government investigations, class actions and other litigation arising in connection with our business. Some of the legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. We believe we have strong defenses to and, where appropriate, will vigorously contest, many of these matters. Given the number of these matters, some are likely to result in adverse judgments, penalties, injunctions, fines or other relief. We may explore potential settlements before a case is taken through trial because of the uncertainty and risks inherent in the litigation process.

For information regarding our accounting for legal contingencies, see Note 6 of the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements in this Form 10-K.